Petitioners challenged respondents' insistence on proof of a live independent PF code at the time of awarding works. Respondents submitted the cause no longer survived; the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
_
132521
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
IVONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION NO:21541 OF 2011
Between:
..,..PETITIONERS
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents insisting proof of live independent P.F. code at the time of awarding works is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and violation of Tender rules and regulations and Article 14, 19,21 of lndian Constitution and consequently direct the respondents not to insistproof of live independent P.F. code at the time of awarding works.
|.A.NO:'t OF 2011 (WPMP.NO: 26226 OF 2011)
Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the' High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to insist proof of live independent P.F. code at the time of awarding works, pending disposal of the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI KUNAREDDY ANJI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents : SRI M. VIDYASAGAR
The Court made the following ORDER
I ,
I
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA
W PETITI oN No.2 5410F2011
ORDER:
Heard Sri KunareddyAnji Reddy, Iearned counsel appearing on behalfof the petitioners and Sri M' Vidya Sagar, learned counselappearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to3.
" ...to issue writ orderor .directionmore particularly in the nature ofWrit of Mandamus declSring the actionof the respondents for insistingproof oflive independentP.F. code at the time of awardingworks is illegal, arbitraryand unreasonable andviolation of Tenderrules and regulations andArticles 14, 19, 2lof Indian Constitution andconsequently direct the respondents not toinsist proof of live independent P. F. code at the timeof awardingworks and pass...".
2
WP 2 I 5,11 201 I
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any,pending
in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.
Sd/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//
To
SECTION OFFICER
HIGH COURT
DATED:1811112024
ORDER
(
<.,,
( ,<br>I
\ ,; UglAli 2025 C) il
\ "+
.SP,AT
WP.No.21541 ot 2011
DISMISSING THE W.P
AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS. ?+ zt^ltup</sup> f c--WJ
2 provisions across 2 enactments
A. Srinivasa Rao
G. Varaprasad
The Executive Engineer Civil (O&M), Division-III
The Superintending Engineer Civil (O&M), Circle, Upper Sileru
The Superintending Engineer (O&M), Circle, Lower Sileru
Surepalli Nanda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
